Iran's leaders appear to see nuclear weapons not simply as a strategic tool, but as an existential necessity — a shield for the regime's survival and a sword to advance its revolutionary ideology.

Iran's leadership sees that one nuclear-armed missile aimed at Israel could accomplish what decades of proxy warfare, rhetoric, and regional maneuvering have failed to do. A nuclear weapon, in their ideological worldview, offers the possibility of wiping out Israel, fulfilling what they see as a historic, strategic, and religious prophecy.

In the minds of Iran's rulers, a nuclear weapon is doubtless the ultimate insurance policy. They believe it can secure the regime's longevity by projecting an image of strength similar to North Korea's strategy: a nuclear-armed dictatorship that cannot be toppled from within or pressured from abroad. In their thinking, nuclear weapons elevate them to invulnerability.

Iran has repeatedly used talks as a tactical pause, a chance to ease sanctions, gain financial relief, and reconstitute its nuclear capabilities behind closed doors. A flawed or partial agreement would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium, advance in missile technology, and expand its scientific base under the protection of international diplomacy. Far from slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions, weak negotiations risk institutionalizing them.

The Iranian regime clearly wants nuclear weapons – desperately – driven by strategic weakness, ideological ambition and fear for its own survival. The West must not give Iran the time or space it needs to complete its mission. The free world's objective must be to dismantle Iran's nuclear program completely, preserve no loopholes, and maintain pressure until Tehran's path to nuclear armament is permanently blocked. Anything less risks empowering a regime that seeks both regional dominance and ideological Islamist conquest under the secure shield of nuclear weapons.

[France's Chief of General Staff of Armed Forces General Fabien] Mandon... suggest[ed] that Russia was preparing for a war against Europe, with 2030 as a possible starting date.

That the general wasn't talking through his cap became clear when President Emmanuel Macron, legally Commander-in-Chief, appeared to sanction the statement with his silence.

A few days before the French general dropped his bombshell, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had come out with a similar warning, with the difference that he cited 2029 instead of Mandon's 2030 as the possible date for the putative Russian attack.

Despite claims of "some progress" by all sides, including Moscow's, the latest Trump attempt at playing peacemaker may fade in the fog of hoped-for but seldom realized possibilities.

What was lacking, Mandon hinted, was the psychological-political readiness of Europeans to switch to a bellicose mood rather than quarreling over early retirement, adding to public holidays and dreaming of their next touristic escapade.

The current mood in Europe may be summed up this way: We are ready for sacrifices if Russia attacks us directly but are reluctant to pay for defending Ukraine, let alone die for it.

[W]ith an estimated four million young men leaving the country, Russia faces a shortage of fighting men that cannot be corrected by bringing Wagner mercenaries from Africa and cannon fodder from North Korea. Though surprisingly resilient, the Russian economy is already showing signs of structural fatigue.